Key result
Public reporting of AMI care in Korea was associated with an increased timely reperfusion rate (β = 2.78, p=0.001) and decreased NSTEMI mortality, but STEMI mortality did not significantly change.
Why the study?
Public reporting is used to promote healthcare quality, but evidence supporting improved quality of care using public reporting in patients with AMI is disputed.
Does public reporting of AMI care improve process and outcome indicators in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Observational (n=83,378)
Yes
Does public reporting of AMI care improve process and outcome indicators in patients with acute myocardial infarction?
Effect estimate: β = 2.78
p-value: p=0.001
Public reporting of AMI care in Korea improved process indicators like timely reperfusion but did not significantly improve overall mortality outcomes for STEMI patients.
Public reporting may improve AMI reperfusion processes without STEMI mortality benefit; leaves open causal effects and broader outcome impact.
Public reporting is a way to promote quality of healthcare. However, evidence supporting improved quality of care using public reporting in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is disputed. This study aims to describe the impact of public reporting of AMI care on hospital quality improvement in Korea. Patients with AMI admitted to the emergency room with ICD-10 codes of I21.0 to I21.9 as the primary or secondary diagnosis were identified from the national health insurance claims data (2007–2012). Between 2007 and 2012, 43,240/83,378 (51.9%) patients manifested ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Timely reperfusion rate increased (β = 2.78, p = 0.001). The mortality rate of STEMI patients was not changed (β = −0.0098, p = 0.384) but that of NSTEMI patients decreased (β = −0.465, p = 0.001). Public reporting has a substantial impact on the process indicators of AMI in Korea because of the increased reperfusion rate. However, the outcome indicators such as mortality did not significantly change, suggesting that public reporting did not necessarily improve the quality of care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chae et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n=83,378). Public reporting of AMI care was evaluated on Timely reperfusion rate (β = 2.78, p=0.001). Public reporting of AMI care in Korea was associated with an increased timely reperfusion rate (β = 2.78, p=0.001) and decreased NSTEMI mortality, but STEMI mortality did not significantly change.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: